Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The United debarcle

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Evan View Post
    I think the plane was designed before overweight America happened. It's not the butt count, it's the butt dimension.
    Indeed.

    ***Off topic*** I've been tempted to start another thread on the topic of 'Average Passenger Weight 2017'. Given all the modern electronic wizardry (load cells in/around the gear?...a scale on a taxiway somewhere for research?), I would think there's some newer, fairly-accurate and real-time-ish data on what folks & aircraft actually weigh. Hopefully Brian will not zip-tie us for going off topic.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by 3WE View Post
      Will do. I'll also check to see if it prohibits the videoing of senile crewmembers with self-control issues.

      It never was meant as a personal attack, it was supposed to be hypothetical.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
        It never was meant as a personal attack, it was supposed to be hypothetical.
        Boeing Bobby…My pet peeve is people who refuse to acknowledge two valid sides to things…well, that and saying that you are out to personally zip tie me, not the other passengers.

        Originally posted by Boeing Bobby in Post #48
        Not any of the other passengers, just you.
        Please be aware that about 20 miles from where I live, a man was walking down the middle of the street and shot and killed by a policeman of another race. There was much media coverage.

        This raised a lot of valid questions and dealt deeply with related issues about pertinent facts, and not-so-pertinent facts and facts vs. testimony…you name it, it’s complicated!

        Is it wrong for a person to be shot just for walking down the street? Yes. Is a cop justified in shooting you if you present a reasonable threat to his health safety and life? Yes. If a cop (who carries a gun) is wrong/tells you something wrong, is it better to comply and work it out later? Yes (see asterisk). Are there bad cops who treat innocent citizens disrespectfully and illegally..and in SOME cases racial profiling happening on top of that? Yes. When a cop rightfully shoots someone can there be witnesses who testify otherwise? Yes. Are there witnesses who lie in those cases? Yes. Are there cases where the police are two quick to shoot? Yes. Are there very difficult cases where the shoot/no-shoot decision can be questioned. Yes. Should they be questioned…(that’s a question to you).

        *I still believe it’s rightful to politely ask the cop, to state the charges and have video available (without appearing as if you are reaching for a weapon, of course...this is complicated.). Of course, instead of acknowledging that maybe this is valid, you start with the zip-tie talk.

        Do I know the final rulings on this specific case and a fair amount of critical, somewhat complex evidence as to who was right and wrong in this case? Yes. Does that mean that right and wrong may fall differently on other cases (depending on facts)? Yes. And regardless of the facts in this case, what would have happened if the dead person had simply complied with the policeman...Yeah, he'd be better off..I get the concept.

        Do I support law enforcement? Yes. Is Law enforcement a crappy job with crappy pay that may give someone a bad attitude? Yes. Is this a 100% race issue? No. Is there a valid concern with race bias in these cases. Yes, bias is evident in some cases.

        And finally, do police wearing body cameras not 1) help the police in the case of being falsely accused of police brutality and being trigger happy AS WELL AS 2) encourage the police to properly follow their procedures with respect to citizens and their rights?

        After 9/11 we learned that a gate agent felt suspicious about the terrorists and didn’t act. We learned that a flight instructor thought it was strange that his student was more interested in takeoff and navigation, and expressed less interest in landing.

        Does this mean that we should have been more diligent? Maybe so. It's complicated. But, I’ll go back to my comment that set you off…your absolute, black and white comment that you can’t even politely verbally object and video.

        If I threaten or interfere with safety (or am passively drunk), please, have at it. If I politely call bull crap and put it on video…(and please note, I already suggested the FA have a ‘body cam’ to catch the incident from it’s inception, because cell phone video does NOT tell the whole story).

        …and guess what, I haven’t even scratched the surface on the complexities of policing and aviation safety. It’s complicated with valid thoughts on many sides.

        I even get the complex issue of a good-faith effort to transport passengers, but the need for protection in a COC for genuine, unforeseen circumstances.

        No apologies coming from me, and it would appear you are in LHB’s dog house.
        Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by Evan View Post
          Interesting. I always thought they certified the RJ with a MTOW that included a full flight AND full fuel tanks...
          Not only are RJs not thus certified, but, in fact, not very many airplanes of any kind are. If you take the CRJ200 as an example (I only use it because I have well over 3,000 hours therein), MZFW is 44,000lbs, max fuel is 14,500lbs (+/- a tad), while MTOW is 53,000lbs, and even that only with the MTOW increase kit. Otherwise it's only 51,000lbs.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by 3WE View Post
            Thank you.If I assault, threaten, interfere, intimidate, or refuse safety orders of ATL crew (or other competent pilot), I invite him(them) to zip tie me. (If anyone else does that to ATL crew (or other competent pilots), I will offer my assistance IF reasonable to do so).As for old, senile, power-mad people with Napoleon complexes, who think that modern tickets have legal language on the back, who randomly go nuts and flame different forum members, who want to personally zip tie me for asking any question at all whatsoever, and who has said enough stupid things over the years displaying some big holes in their aviation knowledge that I'm not really sure they actually fly an airplane...that's why the cell phone recorder will be on.
            I'm reminded of exremely wise words of that great Caribbean philosopher Capt Jack Sparrow who said "The problem is not the problem. It's your attitude about the problem that's the problem". I find this can be equally applicable both to airline employees and the public.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
              ***I find this can be equally applicable both to airline employees and the public***
              As much as I love dogging airline management and policy, my beer $ and blame is on the passenger more than the 'systematic abuse' in the case in the link below.

              https://gma.yahoo.com/video-shows-ka...pstories.html#

              I'd have thought the pilot would have zip tied this guy...but I guess the authority to zip tie anyone of the pilots choosing (including, but not limited to, assault, threat, interference, intimidation or refusal of safety command) only exists on the plane or with special captains?
              Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

              Comment


              • #82
                This is despicable:

                http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39659166

                It's really outrageous that airlines are allowed to intentionally "oversell" flights. It's hard to wrap your head around the logic that consumers do not have a right to the thing they have purchased. It a clear sign of the time we live in, a time when corporate ethics have vaporized and government is unabashedly in thrall to their lobbying machines. It's also mind-bending to witness how complacent and tolerant people have become to this casual abuse. I wonder what it's going to take for people to finally stand up against this. When they finally do, they will look back upon these days the way we look back upon the lawlessness of the early industrial age, with a sort of horror.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Evan View Post
                  ***It's hard to wrap your head around the logic that consumers do not have a right to the thing they have purchased.***
                  If it were only that simple.

                  Airlines have over booked since [no real clue, but a REALLY long time]. A great percentage of the time, it's not a problem. And when it is a problem, the great percentage of time you can pay volunteers and solve the problem...so the vast vast majority of the time, it's not a problem.

                  The subtle psychology is that it's no big deal UNTIL IT HAPPENS TO YOU, OF COURSE.

                  And the issue is not really the over booking- the issue is a bunch of other 'subtle' changes.

                  1) Big #1 is the ratcheting up of load factors and ratcheting down on extra flights. In the olden days, it seems like there were always open seats and slightly rare occurrences of extremely empty flights. Now, a 99 or 100% full plane is quite the norm and the 'empty plane' is hard hard hard to find.

                  2) Is a really big elimination of give and take...used to be, standby was free. Used to be, changes and customer cancellations (within a reasonable time period) were free. Now there's hefty...very hefty...fees and/or fines for exactly that.

                  Everything is take for the airline. They don''t 'give' passengers very much.

                  If I want to change my schedule, I OWE the airline (and that's almost all of them) a significant chunk of money.

                  If THEY want to change my schedule, they owe me NOTHING!

                  #3) Is that you really don't have many other choices. Hubs are now dominated by relatively few airlines...Some places have choices, but to specifically get from one place to another, your list of choices is often very short.

                  Last January Delta spent 6 hours getting me from flyover to Atlanta, then canceled my flight to Birmingham, but offered me a rebooking 30 hours later than my original arrival. I rented a car.

                  Damn good thing I called customer service. I even had to CHEW ON THEM that the COC kind has a 24 hour promise because their big HAL computer AND the agent was set to AUTOMATICALLY cancel my return flights since I had skipped the ATL - BHM leg...the chewing started when the agent said my flight would be canceled...UM NO, MY FRIEND, YOU DIDN'T DELIVER ME TO MY DESTINATION WITHIN 24 HOURS...KEEP MY RETURN RESERVATION.)

                  (Ok, it was weather, but cue my repeated rant that it was an average stormy night (a slower Sunday night) and they went full cascade failure as the tight crew, gate, rampie, plane-cleaner and aircraft schedules melted down.)

                  I can forgive weather...I'm no longer forgiving huge meltdowns for ordinary thunderstorm outbreaks...but isn't it just plane wrong that the system tries to cancel my flight AND keeps the money for the flight I missed when THEY were the ones who didn't have a crew to fly to BHM and I had to do it for them by driving?

                  (PS, I deliberately chose a mid-afternoon flight with numerous backups, just in case there was weather breakdown...but it was stormy around the airport for a couple hours- so there goes the rest of the evening AND THE WHOLE NEXT DAY)

                  Anyway- not really out to argue as much as augment.

                  Overbookings ARE accepted by the traveling public. It USED to be offset by free standby, free cancellations and a lot more open seats.

                  I guess I would favor a big consistent regulation that totally outlaws over booking- It seems so wrong for them make big profits when we cancel on them, but they are free to cancel on us....you can't have it both ways!

                  And maybe one big over-booking policy with liberal pay outs for overbooking. I'm sure someone else could have gotten off for Ms. Canada to make her cruise.

                  You love to play the 'scientific engineering' card. Figuring out how much to over book and what your risk of bumping people is a fairly straight forward exercise...I guess it will continue (even though a second ago, I said it shouldn't). Put in a decent voluntary seat system (and actually, again, that usually works pretty darn good-even though United stepped in it pretty good here with not using good practice).

                  (By the way, shouldn't AA1818 be coming on here with a serious rant of how many people the airlines safely and cheaply move...or is somehow United wrong and AA without reproach?)
                  Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    PS: I still marvel at the congressional 'trapped on a plane' law.

                    I tend to believe it was a good thing.

                    But, instead of lifting a finger and developing some 'scientifically engineered' contingency plans like a couple extra gates and a parking plan and a few busses and a couple meg-tugs-with-snow-tires, the airline's now preemptively cancel 'everything'.

                    Kind of an interesting study in 'be careful what you wish for'.

                    A long time ago at Flyover, they were having a good ole fashioned snowstorm...The schedule was going to hell, but TWA WAS operating...My 1:00 PM flight to MSP was delayed till 3:00...but at 12:30 darned if I didn't walk past the undeparted 10:00 AM flight...Out comes my paper ticket (with COC details on the back), "hey, you got any seats?"...Yeah, sure, no problem, no charge.

                    The good ole days where there was BOTH give and take...and the system was not so totally stressed that thousands of folks were stranded in planes on the tarmac...

                    Should "we" get congress to say 'no overbooking'...maybe so...the airlines may ratchet their missed flight policies up a notch, but so what, they are already pretty damn unforgiving, unless you pay bigtime up front for flexible fares.
                    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                      Should "we" get congress to say 'no overbooking'...maybe so...the airlines may ratchet their missed flight policies up a notch, but so what, they are already pretty damn unforgiving, unless you pay bigtime up front for flexible fares.
                      Well, I prefer draconian missed-flight policies to total fricken anarchy seat booking roulette. If you miss your flight and you have to buy another one, that at least makes sense. You can say "Unless I am prevented from getting to the gate by the gate time, I WILL be travelling on this flight". But this woman was on time, ready to go, with once-in-lifetime plans, maybe took time off from work, maybe even rented out her place, packed thing away, left her dog with friend, basically all the things you do to prepare for a vacation—not to mention the psychological build-up—and then the airline just gave her the shaft. Cold-blooded corporate hijinx. What if her head just exploded like mine certainly would have? There outta be a law...

                      The reason we have 'trapped-on-a-plane' laws is because it became politically expedient. People expressed a lot of collective outrage and politicians—being the parasites they are—saw political opportunity in that. The same force of outrage could be the death of "overselling" flights, if only we didn't live in an age of sheeple.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Evan View Post
                        This is despicable:

                        http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39659166

                        It's really outrageous that airlines are allowed to intentionally "oversell" flights. It's hard to wrap your head around the logic that consumers do not have a right to the thing they have purchased. It a clear sign of the time we live in, a time when corporate ethics have vaporized and government is unabashedly in thrall to their lobbying machines. It's also mind-bending to witness how complacent and tolerant people have become to this casual abuse. I wonder what it's going to take for people to finally stand up against this. When they finally do, they will look back upon these days the way we look back upon the lawlessness of the early industrial age, with a sort of horror.
                        I agree, but I also think that to cut the right of the airline to oversell must be accompanied with a cut to the tight of the user to get a refund if they change their minds. All sales are final, for both parties.

                        --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                        --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                          I agree, but I also think that to cut the right of the airline to oversell must be accompanied with a cut to the tight of the user to get a refund if they change their minds. All sales are final, for both parties.
                          Wrong... they ALREADY penalize customers for that. Its called the 'unrefundable fare'/'flexible fare' and rebooking fee and no more free standby.

                          Acknowledged- I can't make an absolute statement on this, but now, its a very slanted double standard. You change you pay. They change, the COC gives them WIDE leeway.

                          One other subtlety...

                          I have noticed a new, significant and efficient standby system (5 to 10 folks each flight) which I'm sure is profitable... but, no, we gotta have every last penny, so we'll STILL overbook.

                          PS- no disagreement that Ms. Canada got screwed, I just also lean for an improved 'universal' volunteer system...

                          By the way- is there not even a hushed policy that an 'elite frequent flier' can purchase a last minute ticket and bump a 'serf passenger' who got a cheap, early reservation?
                          Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            By the way... in the aggie/smaller town world, we have many times accused regionals of canceling scheduled flights AT THE LAST MINUTE to the hub BECAUSE THE FLIGHT IS UNDER BOOKED...

                            "We can get 'em on the noontime flight and later connections", and they arrive at the final destination at 8:00 PM instead of 11:00 AM...(within our COC)...
                            Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                              I agree, but I also think that to cut the right of the airline to oversell must be accompanied with a cut to the tight of the user to get a refund if they change their minds. All sales are final, for both parties.
                              I'm good with that. For basic ecomomy.

                              3WE is right (sudden lightheadedness), the airlines have already made this the case with their cheapest fares and they sell you the more expensive ones by building in the expense of flying empty seats. It's basically the insurance industry model: everyone in that booking class pays extra for the provision to cancel or rebook, but most never do, so when one passenger cancels, all the others make for it and they come out with more money in the end than if they flew a full flight in basic economy class.

                              So you can toss that argument.


                              By the way- is there not even a hushed policy that an 'elite frequent flier' can purchase a last minute ticket and bump a 'serf passenger' who got a cheap, early reservation?
                              Probably, but let's me clear about that: it's not a 'frequent flier' anymore, it's a 'frequent consumer earning points on everyday purchases with an affinity card'. So, it rewards consumerism, not flying, and that reward is paid for by a kick-back from the bankcard providers to the airlines.

                              If you haven't noticed, a serf passenger with a ton of actual flown miles doesn't get buttkiss these days.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Evan View Post
                                p.s. the answer to the entire problem is this:

                                Regulate the airlines so that they MUST include in their price:

                                - A carry-on bag + personal item
                                - one checked bag (50lbs/23kg) on short haul domestic and two on long haul international flights.
                                - a basic-level seat reservation (aisle and window seats included)
                                - basic refreshments
                                - basic snacks or meals depending on the flight duration
                                - basic IFE where available
                                - pillows and blankets
                                - a minimum seat pitch (perhaps 30")
                                - rebooking for a fair, regulated fee
                                - cancellation up to a fair, regulated time before the flight

                                BOOM, you're back to the 90's, when prices were maybe a BIT higher, airlines were profitable enough and everyone was happier.

                                The internet pricing sites have created a race to the bottom and it will just keep getting worse until it is prohibited by regulation that forces ALL airlines to include basic dignity in their price.
                                In my working life only one airline tried to do just what you describe. They were all about the "warm'n'fuzzy" customer experience, mood lighting, FAs under 45yo and under 200lb etc etc. Said airline had a mighty hard time getting off the ground (pun fully intended), had an even harder time making a profit, and eventually got absorbed by another carrier.

                                It's hard to regulate "dignity", especially when the consumer is more than willing to sell it for $5. Or even $4.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X